Brilliant Margaret Atwood memoir review

[hholiday]

By Kathleen Stock https://archive.is/v2z51 and https://unherd.com/2025/11/what-margaret-atwood-got-wrong/

Just wonderful, humane writing that goes closer than anything else I have read to exploring the blind spots in Atwood’s views on gender, as well as expressing delight in her fiction writing. I particularly love these killer closing lines:

But honestly, the idea that, in the near future, Western governments will need to use direct force to make women do market-friendly things against their own interests is now surely, definitively preposterous. The case of genderism — and surrogacy, and “sex work”, for that matter — shows that authorities only need to persuade enough women that certain activities are kind, or glamorous, or nobly self-improving; at which point, tender-hearted armies will rise up to ruthlessly punish dissenters themselves.

Yes, though a cynic might also say it had something to do with the fact that Dickens was paid by the word!

Interesting that you say other languages tend to the more verbose (still). I've never heard anybody say that but it's a very interesting observation. I wonder what the average size of vocabulary is, comparatively (between countries and as between people in the UK now vs past).

I do worry about a whittling away of the range of expression, Newspeak style, as well as people becoming more afraid to speak fluently and freely for fear of saying the wrong thing (and knowing they will not be granted the grace of people taking things in the spirit they were intended).

I clicked on this thread, excited to see that it had 176 posts. I really enjoyed the article and was looking forward to reading posters thoughts on it.

There are lots of interesting posts, focussed on the OP and some interesting, related tangents, but I had to search for these between the derailing posts and responses.

Howse is skilled at posting TRA arguments that are low hanging fruit for rational thinking people. It can be difficult to resist posting to ‘set the record straight’, which leads to derailing.

Should we start a number of threads based on Howse’s top talking points and then we can redirect posters who want to discuss these points to those threads?

It’s not lost on me that I am posting about this on a thread about KS’s article, but I have promised myself this is the last time I am going to try and intervene about this particular wasp at any of the picnics I join.

Brainworm on cue like clockwork 'bothered' by only one particular 'derailer' not the others who happily have wandered off on who wore it best tangents.

Careful dear, your fragility is showing…

Of course anti censorship expert General Peter is no where to be seen.

This got me thinking and I’m sitting on the fence, flip flopping between caricatures of ‘no nonsense’ , ‘stiff upper lip’ types and caricatures of long winded and verbose monologues.

I really like Stock’s writing style. I her use of language is simple and accessible - she uses lots of analogies to simplify complex or conceptual points.

It’s because you’re really unpleasant, I think.

I know what you mean about loss of fluency but I can’t help admiring writers who can express themselves in a few words. I love how Claire Keegan writes - never wasting a single word.

I'm 'unpleasant'? Or my ideas more like it…

As mentioned before, if you're interested in female writings on the attempts of tiresome misogynists, I recommend Bunbury.

I'm confused by the negatives - who are you saying thinks what? "The Handmaid's Tale" is a picture of a totalitarian patriarchal society, but otherwise I would not have said that a generalised "patriarchy" in which only men apppress women and women are only oppress each other because they are complicit in oppression by men, is a framework that Atwood uses. I think Atwood sees sexism as a force in women's lives, and she explores different aspects of that in her books and very thoroughly in "The Handmaid's Tale" - but it's not the only or even always the most important force. Women bullying each other for all sorts of reasons is very much part of her writing.

Though she does have fun in some of her short pieces with role reversals that work out men's favour anyway - that whatever men do in a society will acquire status.

I hugely admire Stock's style too. Her clarity and precision of thought shines through. She represents the best of philosophical thinking, in my view. Material Girls didn't lose that quality despite being book-length. I think you could have an extremely satisfying and productive disagreement with her because you could follow her line of logic exactly and work out very quickly precisely where any points of disagreement arose and address them properly. I also don't think that she is focused on being right for its own sake, so if you did change her mind on one point, I think she would accept whatever knock-on consequences that had for her argument. I like Helen Joyce's writing enormously for similar reasons.

That's not the style I like in my fiction, though, where I'm a sucker for an incredibly detailed picture of the setting, character and human emotion!

I agree with your comments about how KS argues. I enjoy the Lesbian Project Podcast she dies with Julie Bindel. She is forthright about her points of disagreement but her manner makes it about the points of disagreement and not the person.

I too like rich, descriptive narratives in fiction, and get absorbed in these when they are about people’s character and how they move through the world Where it’s about the weather, or leaves on a tree I get impatient!

Thanks for the reminder about Bunbury. I think I’ve imagined that the Bunbury threads were once pinned to the top of the board - because logically, this isn’t the way Mumsnet rolls. I’m guessing that it was their popularity kept them there.

It could be both of course!
You and your ideas both unpleasant.

Anyway, this’ll be my last post on this thread because Brainworm has a reasonable point and also I must get things done today.

‘No debate’ was a specific stance that sought to block opposing perspectives from being heard. I think everything should be debatable, especially important matters like rights. Authoritarian and brittle to avoid it. Having suggested it didn’t happen you now say it’s good.

Suffragists/ettes: thanks for the quote. I’ll update my view. I’ve read extensive newspaper, parliamentary and pamphlet arguments from the whole period so clearly a mixed picture.

I take it that you and I agree that to the extent those voices were frozen out of the press that that was bad? If you think it’s bad then, why is it good now?

Hate speech/censorship: your view is partisan nonsense.

Three possible positions:
i) sex-based terminology and views are banned, subject to professional censure, account deletion, penalized by judges with the full power of the state, and re-often rewritten even in direct speech.
ii) both permitted as a matter of free speech, and it’s openly contested
iii) gender-based terminology and views are banned [… as above].

Two of those positions are censorship. i and iii. i is what we had/have. We had/have censorship. ii is what we need.

Your view that i is not censorship because you agree with the cause is laughable. If you see iii as censorship then i is too.

If you want to argue for censorship then you need to be brave, informed and articulate enough to make the case. Nothing suggests to me that you are up to the task. Partly, ironically, because of the no debate idea that allowed TRAism to evolve without any serious rigour.

"Secondly, the suffragists and suffragettes: in Britain there was extensive coverage in the media and petitions and debates in parliament from
1860s onwards from both sides."

Our resident derailer claimed that this statement was false, and posted a link to a random website as 'evidence'. I know this is a bit of a derail from the literary theme of this thread, but I was interested enough to check Hansard to verify. Obviously it turns out that Howse was wrong. Universal suffrage was debated extensively in parliament from the 1860s onwards as @GeneralPeter stated.

Find in Hansard - Hansard - UK Parliament

Edited to add: Obviously it's more difficult to find out what was said (or not said) in the press at the time and would take more time and effort than the couple of minutes it took to check Hansard.

I take it that you and I agree that to the extent those voices were frozen out of the press that that was bad? If you think it’s bad then, why is it good now?

I do find it encouraging that even our resident misogynist is now comparing the feminists fighting against genderism to the suffragettes and suffragists.

The context was censorship as Emmeline Pankhurst herself was quoted claiming at the Old Bailey. But I'm sure you know better & can prove otherwise.

Try & keep up.

Lol, imagine comparing the war on dunny etiquette to The Suffragette movement? 🤡

‘No debate’ was a specific stance that sought to block opposing perspectives from being heard. I think everything should be debatable, especially important matters like rights. Authoritarian and brittle to avoid it. Having suggested it didn’t happen you now say it’s good.

I said hate speech was censored not gender critical ideology as proven by JKR's tweets never being censored prior to Musk owning twitter. But I get holding two different thoughts at once can be challenging for some…

Bunbury was fond of Baileys, if I recall correctly?

Thanks to a pp who recommended Cat's Eye... that will go on my list to read next.

Honest question: do you only come here to rub your nubbin at the prospect of being rude to women?

Or are you making genuine arguments, but are just terrible at tone/oblivious to how counterproductive it is?

I'm guessing the response will be 'the nasty mummies started it' but that's not good enough - this consistent level of rudeness is either a choice, or a symptom. I'd like to know which.

I’m sure we’ve all drawn our own conclusions as to that.

Oh yes, I know which I think it is. Just, y' know, checking at source.

Oh I hadn't come across The Lesbian Project! Thanks for the tip.

The stories people tell themselves eh?

The Lesbian Project was initiated by Kathleen Stock and Julie Bindel, Their inaugural meeting was greeted with the sort of emotionally incontinent aggression most women's meetings are greeted with. It demonstrates the levels of censorship and intimidation that women routinely face these days - kind of exemplified by the repeated derailing of this thread about two fascinating women writers.

This thread has some very funny links:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4772051-film-of-protest-outside-the-lesbian-project-meeting